Saturday, April 13, 2013

Organic cotton is grown using methods and materials that have a low impact on
the environment. Organic production systems replenish and maintain soil
fertility, reduce the use of toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers,
and build biologically diverse agriculture. Third-party certification
organizations verify that organic producers use only methods and materials
allowed in organic production. Organic cotton is grown without the use of toxic
and persistent pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. In addition, federal
regulations prohibit the use of genetically engineered seed for organic
farming. All cotton sold as organic in the United States must meet strict
federal regulations covering how the cotton is grown.

Organic cotton is generally
understood as cotton from
non genetically
modified plants, that is to be grown without the use of any
synthetic agricultural chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides. In
the United States cotton plantations must also meet the requirements enforced
by the National Organic Program (NOP), from the USDA, in order to be considered
organic. This institution determines the allowed practices for pest control,
growing, fertilizing, and handling of organic crops.As of 2007, 265,517 bales
of organic cotton were produced in 24 countries and worldwide production was
growing at a rate of more than 50% per year.

Ecological footprint

Cotton covers 55% of the
world's cultivated land yet uses 75% of the world's insecticides, more than any
other single major crop.Other environmental consequences of the elevated use
of chemicals in the non organic cotton growing methods consist of:

·High levels of agrochemicals
are used in the production of non-organic, conventional cotton. Conventional farming devours roughly a third of a lb of pesticides & fertilizers to produce enough for just 1 t shirt .

·Cotton production uses
more chemicals per unit area than any other crop and accounts in total for
10-16% of the world's pesticides (including herbicides, insecticides, and
defoliants).

·Pesticides, the nine
most common are highly toxic; five are probable carcinogens.

·GMO used in 70% of US
grown cotton. That requires intense irrigation . Chemicals used in the
processing of cotton pollute the air and surface waters.

·Residual chemicals may
irritate consumers' skin.

·Decreased biodiversity
and shifting equilibrium of ecosystems due to the use of pesticides.

Organic
system plan

Producers must elaborate an organic
production or handling system plan which must also be approved by the state
certifying agency or the USDA. This plan must include careful explanation of
every process held in the plantation, as well as the frequency with which they
are performed. A list of substances used on the crops is also necessary, along
with a description of their composition, place where they will be used, and if
possible documentation of commercial availability. This inventory of substances
is important for the regulation of allowed and

prohibited material established
by the SOP.Organic cotton growers must also provide A description of the
control procedures and physical barriers established to prevent contact of
organic and non organic crops on split operations and to avoid contact of
organic production with prohibited substance during gestation, harvesting, and
handling operations . This production plan can also be transferred to
other states as long as it has already been approved by a certifying agency.

Production

Production requirements are specifically the
set of changes that must be made to field and farming practices in order for a
crop to be considered organic. To begin with, organic fields must go through a
cleansing period of three years, without the use of any prohibited substances,
before planting the first organic crop. Fields must also be equipped with
physical barriers and buzzers in order to prevent contact of organic crops with
any chemical substance product of surface runoff from
crops nearby. Producers must also strive to promote soil fertility through
cultivation practices while maintaining or improving the physical, chemical,
and biological condition of the soil and minimizes soil erosion. Organic
growers must also implement practices to support biodiversity. Such practices
include integrated pest management (IPM), which consists of the manipulation of
ecosystems that benefit both the crops and the organisms that live around it.
In addition to these practices, producers may only apply crop nutrients and
soil amendments included on the National List of synthetic substances allowed
in crop production.

Handling

Handling procedures are all the processes
related to product packaging, pest control in handling processing facilities
among others. The SOP allows the use of mechanical or

biological methods for
the purpose of retarding spoilage of products, but at the same time it
prohibits the use of volatile synthetic solvents in processed products or any
ingredient that is labeled as organic.

Pesticides

Since organic cotton is grown without the use
of synthetic pesticides, it should contain fewer pesticides than conventional
cotton. Pesticides used in the production of conventional cotton include orthophosphates such
as phorate and methamidophos, endosulfan (highly
toxic to farmers,] but not
very environmentally persistent) and aldicarb. Other
pesticides persisting in cotton fields in the United States include Trifluralin, Toxaphene and DDT .Although the last two chemicals are no
longer used in the United States their long breakdown period and
difficulty in removal ensures their persistence. Thus even organic cotton
fields may contain them since conventional cotton fields can be transitioned to
organic fields in 2–3 years.

Over time though, studies have been done to
find alternatives to conventional pesticide substances. These nonconventional
farmers have given up their land and its yields to the testing of different,
more organic ways of pest control. Organic farmers argue that conventional
farmers don’t know the long term effects of the pesticides they use, especially
when the evidence is hidden under the soil. Some farmers in the US use
composted tea leaves to act as a substitute for pesticides. Research
continues to seek new environmentally, friendly ways to rid the soil of harmful
pesticides. There has even been a study on using certain animal manure, like
chickens, to decrease pest population.

How is the apparel
industry involved with organic cotton?Apparel
companies are developing programs that either use 100 percent organically grown
cotton, or blend small percentages of organic cotton with conventional cotton
in their products. There are a number of companies driving the expanded use of
domestic and international organic cotton.

What kinds of
products are made using organic cotton? As
a result of consumer interest, organic cotton fiber is used in everything from
personal care

items (sanitary products, make-up removal pads, cotton puffs and
ear swabs), to home furnishings (towels, bathrobes, sheets, blankets, bedding),
children's products (toys, diapers), clothes of all kinds and styles (whether
for lounging, sports or the workplace), and even stationery and note
cards.In addition, organic cottonseed is used for animal feed, and organic cottonseed
oil is used in a variety of food products, including cookies and chips.

Modern Vintage Attic strives to source the latest eco fashion trends with all your favorite eco designers and modern vintage clothing name brands.Select from a mix of retro upscale and casual modern vintage styles to meet your needs and desires to feel confident and comfortable in what you wear! Garments fabricated from sustainable, organic and natural fibers from suppliers who support and practice fair trade.

Live it. Feel it. Wear it.

Make a difference and feel the difference with organic clothing, eco fashion accessories and eco friendly classic modern vintage clothing pieces to help save our Planet.

100% Made in the U.S.A. - Organic clothing and Sustainable Fashion for both men and women!

“One bag for one coupon – it doesn’t matter how many clothes are in it or what condition they are in. However, at this time, we’re only accepting clothing – no shoes or jewelry. Customers are limited to 2 bags per day.” When the sales associates accept a bag, they tape itup with special green tape to ensure that no one goes through the bags looking for great finds. The bags are shipped to a sorting facility where they are divided into 4 groups:

Rewear: clothing that is good enough for reuse will be sold

Reuse: textiles that can easily be converted can find a second life as cleaning cloths

Recycle:some clothes will be broken down and repurposed into new textile fabrics

Energy:clothing that can not be reused or repurposed will be burned to create energy.

Any revenue collected from these activities will be used to fund

the customer coupons, donate to local charities, and re-invest in H&M’s sustainability initiatives.

H&M partnered with Swiss company I:CO to facilitate the collection and recycling. I:CO is a company that provides the infrastructure for clothing recycling initiatives provided by a growing number of retailers. And it’s big business: the company has 3,000 employees worldwide and currently processes around 500 tons of used items every day in 74 countries.

The company doesn’t just want to recycle discarded goods – they want to upcycle the materials they collect and even influence the supply chain to increase the quantity of recycled materials in new products.

Only select stores are participating in this program, though H&Mplans on including more stores this year.

The North Face

The world’s largest outdoor clothing company, has partnered withI:COand The Conservation Allianceto launch a new recycling program designed to keep clothing out of landfills.

The Clothes The Loop program allows consumers to drop off worn out or unwanted clothing at participating The North Face stores, regardless of condition or brand. Specially marked collection bins have been placed in ten of the company’s retail stores, including Chicago,New York and San Francisco locations.

Consumers who drop off items will receive a voucher that can be redeemed for $10 off a purchase from one of the company’s stores.

The Clothes The Loop program will be carried out in collaboration with I:CO, a company that collects, sorts and recycles used textiles and shoes. I:CO has previously partnered with PUMA, Foot Locker, Adidas, Carhartt, Volcom and H&M.

Items deposited into the bins will be sent to a recycling center where they are sorted, reused or recycled into raw materials, including fibers for new clothing, carpet padding, stuffing for toys and carpet padding, according to The North Face.

"Our partnership with I:CO takes our commitment to reducing waste even further by providing our customers with an alternative end for products they no longer want or need, keeping these items from landfills and protecting our natural playgrounds," said Adam Mott, The North Face corporate sustainability manager.

Approximately 22 billion pounds of textile waste ended up in landfills in 2010, according to the U.S. EPA. The production of a single T-shirt consumes between 10,000 and 30,000 liters of water and produces almost eight pounds of C02 emissions, says I:CO on its website. Only five to ten percent of these quantities are used or produced during the recycling process, the company says.

All proceeds from the program will benefit The Conservation Alliance, which helps fund community-based campaigns to protect wilderness and recreation areas.Puma

InCycle is available in Puma stores worldwide starting this month - the industry's first "closed-loop" clothing line includes clothes, footwear and accessories - all Cradle to Cradle Certified.

Puma says its purpose is to help people reduce their personal environmental footprints by buying clothes that can be returned tothe company at the end of life.

When people return the clothes under PUMA's Bring Me Back Program,they will either be recycled or composted depending on the material.

"We feel that we are responsible for the environmental impact our products cause and this innovative concept in sustainability is a first step towards our long-term vision of using innovative materials and design concepts for PUMA products that can be recycled in technical processes or composted in biological cycles," says CEO Franz Koch.

Friday, April 12, 2013

For the last few years this company showcased unprecedented commitment and willingness to go above and beyond to meet the highest environmental and sustainable standard. Following its mission H&M made another step: Collaborated with Beyonce to produce great new collections. Their Summer 2013 collection features many of Beyonce's own ideas and her personal style. So, whether or not you are going to H& M just simply because they are trendy and inexpensive or because you are a huge fan of Beyonce, you definitely get an added benefit because you happen to do good for environment. Don't forget to give yourself a credit, be proud and call yourself an environmentalist! That is probably bit of a stretch, but still!

H&M does more than just create great fashion; they're also very environmentally conscious and just publicly released a list of their suppliers, which many retailers refuse to do, according to Forbes.

They also have a Don't Let Fashion Go to Waste campaign where you can bring in your old clothes and get a voucher for 15% off something new. The old clothes are then donated to charity; H&M has donated 3.2 million garments so far.

They're also trying to save water by using water-saving production techniques in creating their garments and conducting factory audits.

Monday, April 8, 2013

President Barack Obama inked his signature on a bill that sadly, in minds of millions of consumers, has a name of its own,

“The Monsanto Protection Act.” It details a restriction of governmental intervention to halt the supply and production of genetically modified seeds and crops, even if studies conclude that they pose an environmental danger. Why dont we know about it? It is so important ? Why should we care that it was not highly publicized? Was is intentionally "covered up'" as many other unpopular decisions ? My mind is spinning, as I am sure many of the other green activitists. What about the general public? or it just us again, "The Paranoid green consumers. who over react to anything" and ready to "Occupy ...anything!"?

Lets investigate, if any of it should be a concern or the facts below are isolated incident and not a pattern.Grossing over $2 billion last year, Monsanto is one of the largest agricultural biotechnology corporations on the planet. Its contributions to our world include a wide array of pesticides, genetically modified soya and corn seeds andLEDs. Oh, and Agent Orange, the chemical used by the U.S. army to kill hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese during the ’60s. A mixed bag to be sure.

It may be the case that Monsanto has moved on from its enthusiasm for murder, joining the nouveau movement many, ironically, describe as “responsible capitalism.” But it is still far from being the altruistic provider its website portrays it to be, with an Argentinian scholarship here, a smiling African child there.Last year alone, Monsanto took more than 100 American family farmers to court for infringement of patent laws, and in 2012 they spent $46 million on advertising efforts to dissuade Californian residents from voting “yes” on a piece of legislation that would force producers to openly label their GM products. In short, one of the largest food production corporations in the world has made it obvious that they would rather the public did not know what is going into their food.The provisions Obama signed into law last Thursday directly infringe upon states’ right to protect its people and ecosystem if the worst-case scenario becomes a reality.

Yet, by the looks of things, Monsanto was the only third party to collude in the bill’s creation and, according to the Russian Times, contributed $64,250 to the 2012 election campaign of the bill’s author, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Perhaps it is not all that surprising to hear of a multinational corporation lobbying Washington to see its needs are met. Perhaps it is not all too strange to hear Blunt, once voted the “most crooked member of Congress,” took a little financial convincing.

What would you say now?

...and one more thing I am wondering about: What kind of food does Mr.Obama family eat? I have heard there is an organic garden in the White House that his wife is so proud about. Does that mean they are trying to avoid GMO in their food? Why? What is safe for a general public might not be that safe for his own children? Strange. Oh, well, I might be just having a bad day..

In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto’s Genetically
Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation’s 25,000 organic farms and
ranches, America’s organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal.

Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, the
executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer
oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto’s controversial
Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for
“coexistence” with Monsanto .

Whole
Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and “seed purity,”

gave
the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the “conditional deregulation”
of Monsanto’s genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa.
This means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along
with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial
crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation;
guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to
lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil
food web by the toxic

herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of
alfalfa across the U.S.

In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls
for “public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology
industry,” even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing,
nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called
government “oversight” of Frankencrops such as Monsanto’s sugar beets and
alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its
surrender to Monsanto is permanent: “The policy set for GE alfalfa will most
likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a
must.”

Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?

According to informed sources, the CEOs of
WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA
Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack’s
previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as “Governor of the Year” in
2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto
corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic
Inc.’s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and
more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and
locavores.

The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of
activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this
to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost,
and that it’s time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation
prize they seek is a so-called “coexistence” between the biotech Behemoth and
the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the
unpleasant fact that Monsanto’s unlabeled and unregulated genetically
engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10
of global) crop land.

WFM and most of the largest organic
companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut
off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called
Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural
Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic
companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show
that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this
since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on
so-called “natural” foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI’s sales and
are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

From their “business as usual”
perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups
such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like
the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big
customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway;
and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and
canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs.

Whole Foods’ Dirty Little Secret: Most of
the So-Called “Natural” Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are
Contaminated with GMOs

The main reason, however, why Whole Foods
is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the
rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy
surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because
they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM’s $9 billion annual sales is derived
from so-called “natural” processed foods and animal products that are
contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called “natural”
products (no doubt WFM’s lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and
guess what: they’re all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified
organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely
detectable trace amounts.

Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by
Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are
not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and
GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as “natural.”

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control
of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model
of selling twice as much so-called “natural” food as certified organic food,
coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational
food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic
movement.

Covering Up GMO Contamination:
Perpetrating “Natural” Fraud

Many well-meaning consumers are confused
about the difference between conventional products marketed as “natural,” and
those nutritionally/ environmentally superior and climate-friendly products
that are “certified organic.”

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale
distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the
qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently
glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed “natural” foods and
products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a “natural” supply chain
where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal
Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

A troubling trend in organics today is the
calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from
certified organic ingredients and products to so-called “natural” ingredients.
With the exception of the “grass-fed and grass-finished” meat sector, most
“natural” meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains
and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in
CAFOs.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their
profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic
consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine
organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to “natural”
imposters. It’s no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified
organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and
“natural” purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery
store sales.

The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will
Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called “Natural” GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off
the Market

There can be no such thing as
“coexistence” with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys
biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals,
destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world’s 1.5 billion seed-saving
small farmers.

There is no such thing as coexistence
between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there
are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on
supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods
containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom
to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers
have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are
safety-tested and labeled.

Of course the EU food industry understands
that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods.
European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald’s
and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto
executive when GMOs first came on the market: “If you put a label on
genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on
it.”

The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are
supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their
European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a
PhD, consumers understand you don’t want your food safety or environmental
sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like
Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont – the same people who brought you toxic pesticides,
Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming.

Industry leaders are acutely aware of the
fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has
shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods.
Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits
for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their
friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer
GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich
(Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory
labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don’t hold your breath for Congress to
take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers’ right to know what’s in their
food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called Citizens United case gave big corporations and billionaires the right
to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to
buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling
laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent.

Perfectly dramatizing the “Revolving Door” between Monsanto and the
Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel
for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech
bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.

With big money controlling Congress and
the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We’ve got
to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace,
at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their
products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to
pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state
levels.